If God Is Real

If there is an actual god with the power ascribed to him/her/it---would we/humanity be left alone to continue our ridiculous, destructive, murderous, selfish,

ways in which we treat each other and mother earth? I'm asking seriously. So much pain, death and exclusion from any tenets that make sense to me.

(damn. I need to get out and play with a yo-yo or a kite or something. Or maybe just tickle myself.)

It seems we're being left to our own devices. How's that working out for us?

 

Those who pretend to know things they don't would reply that we are not alone, god is all around us, if we would but see. All the pain and death is our own doing, and all the good things are thanks to god. They would say that things are working out exactly as god wants them to, and we are all in good hands (except those who aren't).

How do you reason with this?

 

Can't, personally. Hucksters dig it. Human's are easy pickins'.

 

That's only one answer. There are many different answers (also coming from 'those people who pretend to know things' or better said people who believe in a God ) and interpretations and if there is a God they could all be possible. We just don't know for certain.

 

I don't think you can reason with people who hold such views. For one thing they didn't arrive at that position through a process of reason, so I think it unlikely that reason will cause them to change their minds.

Once, some years ago, a Hare Krishna devotee told me that they are 'un-defeatable in debate'. And that's because if you ask an inconvenient question, they just fall back on 'god's inconceivable power' or other such arguments. It doesn't matter what well thought out criticisms or questions you come up with - it all gets dismissed in the same way.

Belief on the level at which many people hold it is not really susceptible to reason. They are mainly under the spell of a dangerous and outmoded type of 'grand narrative' view of the world. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and many other lesser groups. Just accept this little reality package and you don't have to think any more.

It's rare you find a religious person who if you ask a difficult question will admit they just don't have an answer.

 

That's right, we don't know for certain which religion is true, and in fact we don't know if any are. In fact, there seems to be a lack of evidence for all religions, ever. What does this tell us about religions?

What is the difference between pretending to know something you don't, and believing in God? Serious question.

 

I was mainly talking about answers given about God by believers, it is pointless to measure which organized religion is the most true in the absolute sense for a non believer who has no use for it. Even believers/followers of the same religion can sincerly come up with a different answer. Can you accept that? I think you are generalizing religious people when you portray them as pretenders. A lot of them who would use the term 'I know' do so because they strongly believe that they're right. We don't have to agree with their perception or wording. But to say they are all pretenders because of it tells us more about you imo.

Religions are just organized belief structures. It is not about which one is absolute true for all of us. It is not about conforming blindly to it's consensus or dogmas. It is how they are used by the people who join them. What matters is that you should accept that other people have a use for them.

Pretending seems to imply to say you are or think something you know you are not. People who have faith in God sincerely feel they know God exists. We can shit allover their wording and beliefs too if we think that might have a purpose but the fact is to label all people with sincere faith as pretenders is a guarantee to distort your perception of religious people (as we can see when you consistently seem to generalize and stereotype them).
You must understand that an atheist can always argue with a theist about the truth. It is because such atheists can't give it a rest that other people believe and/or have faith in things they perceive as bogus and in contradiction with reality. In reality though such beliefs and faith are not in conflict with reality. Those people seem not busy with the parts of religion you are focussing upon when pointing out how it is in conflict with reality. You can hold it against them that they are part of that religion, yet not busy with those parts you find essential (like that they are not proper believers, according to their church leaders and you ), but the fact is many people are part of even the same religion for lots of different reasons.

 

Great post. Totally agree with this and have something to add but first I want to make a couple of quick points.

Jesus as "The Messiah".....If Jesus did exist, he was a messiah. There were lots of messiahs at the time. The term simply meant "bringer of gnosis". Gnosis translates to "knowledge". A messiah was simply a teacher. "The Messiah" as a savior and in a singular sense is just something that has evolved later.

Secondly...there is almost nothing credible outside of the bible to prove that Jesus ever existed. I really hope he did but who knows? Josephus may have mentioned him briefly but it should be noted that he was a turncoat on his own people for his own benefit and anything he wrote should be considered in that light.

In relation to the quoted post.....I love it when I get a chance to debate the people you're talking about. Not because I think I will ever win but because I love hitting them out of left field and seeing the "deer in the headlights" look on their face. Is the bible the "word of God"? Well...lets say it was. But then it was handed down orally for generations. Once the stories were written down, they were written down by many people in many different forms. By the year 330 there were all kinds of different texts floating around and the church needed one book to call the official text (to consolidate it's own power, of course). They formed the Council Of Nicea in 330 and spent three years debating and deciding which texts were acceptable and which text would not be included. For all that were included, there were many that weren't. Even the ones that were included were chosen versions of the text while different versions of the same text were set aside. After that, these texts were edited, rewritten, translated, edited again, etc. etc. etc.

So if the bible really is the word of God.....stories from people "inspired" by God.....there is absolutely no way that any logical person can look at that history and say that whatever version they are reading now is anything close to exactly what was originally intended.

 

I had another thought, and although you are aware of this, I feel like pointing it out because you often seem to equate it to the same thing: if God is real and wheter which religion is (the most) true are 2 entirely different questions. There may be a connection because God is part of religion, but in essence if there is a God, religion is most likely not part of It/Him in any way. Determining which religion is the most true or truthful will still not give you an absolute answer wether God is real or not or what God exactly is.
Same the other way around: people who believe God is real don't need to have a conviction which religion is the most true (even if they're part of a religion themselves). Even more mindbaffling perhaps : believers in God that are part of a religion may not even bother with the question which religion is the most true/truthful. It is not a central question for people who have found a religion that suits them. Others may make it a central question (atheists, but also fellow or other religious followers). But it is trivial where it comes to the question is God real or not.

 

True. What is so great about this is that it makes Life of Brian enjoyable for everyone

 

What you say about many 'messiahs' makes me wonder if you've read Reza Aslan's excellent book 'Zealot' where all that is gone into in great depth, as well as much other material which casts doubt over the authenticity of the Gospel accounts of Jesus life. Many of the would be messiahs of the 1st century were killed by the Romans whom they sought to drive out of Palestine.

As regards the second half of your post, I agree that we can't really know exactly what was excluded or introduced by various councils etc, and no doubt there has been re-editing over the centuries.

But the Bible and Christianity are only one religion. Others too have texts which present different kinds of problems. However, I can't see how one could determine in any kind of objective way which of such texts to believe in. Bible vs. Bhagavad Gita for instance. There are similarities, but also huge differences.

 

The active god is the authority we invest in our own invocations is the way it works. We feel justified in our own determinations.

 

We are never closer to the actual authoritative presentation of nature then when we are silent. Be still and know.

 

If God exists, I'll go to hell. People who believe keep telling me I'll go to hell and stay there forever. If God exists, its nose must be so high that it sends people to hell for not believing it. How bad God is if it exists. I doubt if God exists. I am between not believing and believing.

 

It's not all true. The Roman Catholic Church canonized the bible.

I am not a Christian, and I can say that your comment is ignorant. Something interesting about the bible is that it was canonized by the same church that Revelations refers to as "Mystery Babylon." The teachings of the New Testament is very different than those of the Old. Jesus, the god that the Christians worship, even separates himself from the Old Testament believers. He even referred to the old testament as "there doctrine." If you would actually read and used critical thinking, you would see that the god of the Old Testament is a sadistic and psychotic megalomaniac compared to the god of the New Testament, who teaches truth, love, forgiveness, and complete selflessness. It was Jesus who said, "Let those who are without sin cast the first stone." Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is the one and only God in the flesh, and that his death and resurrection nullifies the believer’s requirement to adhere to Old Testament law for eternal salvation, which is the 10 commandments and over 600 other bylaws or rules. I hope that helps you have a more truthful outlook.

 

If God exists, give God more credit for knowing what he is doing. I don't get this obsession with God. Reasonably, he completely understands you. I don't think you should accept anybody who tells you God is unreasonable. If he could create the universe, he would have to be very high minded. To think that God, the ubergenius, greater than Einstein, greater than anybody, is also so petty and trivial that he sits around smiting his minions like a kid spitting on ants is pretty insulting. I think God is more like Dr. Brown from Back to the Future, a mad scientist who studies us all and never comes to a conclusion, endlessly baffled and infinitely creative.

 

If reason is supposedly a function of the universe, doesn't 'Mad Scientist' God's non-conclusiveness inherently make him unreasonable?

 

OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!
NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN!!!

Fuck sakes people, the existence of God can NOT be proven to be true or false, deal with it.

If you want to bitch and complain about the utterly asinine things practitioners of religion do, fine, I'm right there with ya, but debates about God's existence are futile.

none of us will know one way or the other until we are rotting in the ground and then it's too late to say "nya, nya, told ya so!"

 

I disagree, there are Gods and depictions of God(s) which have been reasonably refuted. I think if nothing else, the exercise helps develop logic and reasoning, perhaps help some approach their faith as well.

 

Can you give an example of a god or depiction of god that has been refuted?